memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:D7 class (2256)
D7 in Discovery Episode 5 So uh, that ship they call a Klingon Class D7 Battle Cruiser in Discovery looks nothing like a D7 from any other series... Any thoughts about this and discussing 'continuity' of this series with other Star Treks? It's like they have totally screwed with everything Klingon, and only compound it with each episode...Baggins (talk) 08:53, October 16, 2017 (UTC) Still later in the episode they seem to call it a Bird of Prey....Baggins (talk) 09:47, October 16, 2017 (UTC) :It's not clear whether the Bird of Prey and the D7 are the same ship, though. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 10:00, October 16, 2017 (UTC) ::General discussion of the episode should take place at the Discussion forum(click "Discuss" in the Memory Alpha taskbar). This page is for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 10:03, October 16, 2017 (UTC) ::: Uh, they are. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 10:58, October 16, 2017 (UTC) ::If so, I greatly apologize for my error, but it didn't seem that way to me as the OP seems to be asking for general thoughts. 31dot (talk) 11:01, October 16, 2017 (UTC) ::: And even, if so, it would certainly apply to the changes made to this article, because it would either need a massive overhaul or a new page altogether. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 11:05, October 16, 2017 (UTC) ::We may need to wait and see if we learn any more about this ship but we could disambiguate them somehow(year, perhaps) and give them separate pages. 31dot (talk) 11:35, October 16, 2017 (UTC) Yes, exactly... I'm not a huge fan of 'merge' the facts of these Discovery related 'reimagined' bits that contradict the previous star trek series, as is, unless there is some reasonable in-universe explanation to begin with... Treating all these new Klingons as exactly the same as old Klingons when they are biologically very different than the old, culturally act different, and even their ships don't even match the designs of the old series but 'share the same names'... We don't even know if these Klingons share the exact same biology and lineage as the old Klingons. They might be reimagining the biology completely, and trying to merge the facts of this 'group' with facts we know from older series might be 'too premature'... So split pages, or even splitting sections of pages might be better idea. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/dis1.htm#chooseyourpain Baggins (talk) 15:20, October 16, 2017 (UTC) Also I looked back over the episode based on what I could see, it seems that shots we see early on match later shots in the episode but from a 'distance'... so I think its intended to be the same ship... I wasn't able to get screen grab, but there is one over at Ex astris which I've linked to the review where picture can be found.Baggins (talk) 15:24, October 16, 2017 (UTC) :To be fair, various non-canon sources have stated that there are numerous variants of the D7 class, as shown here. The ship seen here could just be another variant. The Wikia Editor (talk) 00:59, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :: The computer identified the ship as a "D7 Battlecruiser" by its warps signature. Perhaps it merely uses the same type of Warp Core as a D7? Like how the shuttlecraft Chaffee has a "Danube-class" computer core? 04:27, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :::It's possible, although I'm currently only aware of how these ships use different types of computers and warp engines. Like I said, there are numerous variants established in non-canon sources. Many of these variants were distinguised with an additional uppercase letter (i.e. D7A, D7C, etc.). The Wikia Editor (talk) 20:55, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :::However, the 'variants' are based on the original ship design with new features added, and upgrades. The ship in Discovery bares no similarities D7 range. You can see the same ship type on discovery back in episode 2 during the battle as well, its the triangle shaped ships that warp in with the Klingons battlegroups. https://imgur.com/hkg5F6w This is how a D7 should look but maybe with a bit more modernized textured look like the D7 from JJ Abrahams movies design... :::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jldnOkg16f8 Baggins (talk) 08:36, October 19, 2017 (UTC) Labelling this D7 as a 'different hull configuration' in the article is conjecture, it might just be a complete visual redesign like the DSC Klingons themselves. I think it should be treated like any other D7 until we get official word. Mention the design differences somewhere else in the article.--Tuskin38 (talk) 12:24, October 21, 2017 (UTC) :But we do note the physiological differences between these Klingons and other versions in the Klingon article too. I think the visual difference is notable. We do mention much smaller differences for previous appearances. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 20:20, October 21, 2017 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS8NbY-FYyo Baggins (talk) 22:41, October 31, 2017 (UTC) DIS Season 2 D7 in Klingon Can anyone here understand Klingon? Did Tyler literally say ‘D7’ in Klingon? Or was that just a transliteration for the audience’s sake?--Tuskin38 (talk) 04:03, February 1, 2019 (UTC) Can we assume that given this scene, the season 1 "D7" that looked nothing like one has been retconned? JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 14:02, February 1, 2019 (UTC) No, because they called this one a new design, and it hasn't been built yet. --Tuskin38 (talk) 15:40, February 1, 2019 (UTC) :That's exactly what I mean – they established in this episode that D7 is the name of this new design (similar to the classic D7) and so the fact that they called a completely different class "D7" was likely a continuity error. Or a mistake on the part of Federation characters, and not an in-universe fact. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 15:57, February 1, 2019 (UTC) ::This episode made it clear, that the original D7 and the D7 from Choose Your Pain are not related to each other. Why not splitting it into D7 class (prison ship) or D7 class (House of Mo'Kai) and D7 class (Klingon Empire)? 16:06, February 1, 2019 (UTC) Well, all the officially licensed out of show material call the Season 1 D7 the 'Sech' (Torch) Class. It is only ever called a D7 in the show. So it could be a mistake, or as you said, a retcon--Tuskin38 (talk) 16:08, February 1, 2019 (UTC) ::: We have three completely different-looking ship types all called "Antares class", so this isn't a totally new situation. So, a split by affiliation or designation would probably be a good idea. Kennelly (talk) 17:03, February 1, 2019 (UTC) ::::See the retcon and resource policies. There is never a retcon unless there has to be a retcon, and the show always* takes precedence (*except in very rare cases involving ambiguity of terms). The Season 1 D7 needs a page, since it is clearly a different design, and the "classic" D7 will stay here, since it clearly is more prominent than the Season 1 version. As for the disambiguation, just use the year, since it's unlikely they are going to make this mistake again if they're trying to "correct" it, and hopefully they will use a different name for the Season 1 version on screen before they stop using those models and clean up the whole mess. - (on an unsecure connection) 21:12, February 1, 2019 (UTC) :::::Following the example of , which was never called "Oberth" onscreen but rather "Federation science vessel" and the like, wouldn't the solution be to put the ship at Sech-class, while noting that it was called a "D7 battle cruiser" (and a "bird of prey") in the episode? -- UncertainError (talk) 23:42, February 1, 2019 (UTC) ::::"Federation science vessel" is a descriptive term that can be easily applied to multiple classes, like battle crusier and bird of prey, but D7 is more specific. Production names can only be used if we don't have a specific name, and I thought there was some ambiguity to the bird of prey reference as well. - 13:41, February 2, 2019 (UTC) Name Shouldn’t this page be called the Sech class since that is what the ship is called from other non cannon sources and they are clearly trying to retcon this as not being a d7 in DIS Point of Light.--Hunter R. Gray (talk) 02:28, February 13, 2019 (UTC) : "...from other non cannon sources..." -- You answered your own question, but you probably meant canon. --Alan (talk) 02:50, February 13, 2019 (UTC) If it is not stated on screen it is not cannon, but the Oberth class is never stated on screen, but is called Oberth Class, and no names on screen are given names from other sources. Eaglemoss, An official model maker of Star Trek, gives it that name, so why not call it that.--Hunter R. Gray (talk) 05:46, February 13, 2019 (UTC) : We're not talking about large projectile weapons here, so I'm not sure why you need to tell me what cannon is, when the word is canon. Also, the name Oberth class did appear on screen, and as well is supported by primary production sources and staff, Eaglemoss is neither, according to our site policies. --Alan (talk) 12:32, February 13, 2019 (UTC) ::Indeed. Although, if Eaglemoss was quoting a primary production staff member as having used the term, that'd be a different matter altogether. Especially if this type of ship wasn't named on-screen. It is – it's called a "D7" – so this page should, of course, stay where it is. I hope that's clear to you, Hunter R. Gray. --Defiant (talk) 12:53, February 13, 2019 (UTC) :::It should be noted that Eaglemoss's Klingon ship names do originate from a production source (Kirsten Beyer), as discussed here. -- UncertainError (talk) 01:46, February 14, 2019 (UTC) ::::Memory Alpha shouldn't be bound by the Okudas' questionable interpretation of D7 as an entirely traditional class name, especially since later we learned that a K't'inga-looking design can also be a D7 if the VFX happen to use that model. There is no contradiction in reporting as fact that D7 is a designation several designs can share, without going into any sort of speculative detail. This particular version is Sech-class and also a D7; no need for the shaky disambiguation by the date of one encounter. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 16:11, April 23, 2019 (UTC) : And the unnecessary qualifier is necessary because? --Alan (talk) 17:05, April 23, 2019 (UTC) ::::Because some users will be looking for “that ship which is absolutely not a D7” in article lists, and it also drives the point home that D7 can be several traditional classes. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 17:16, April 23, 2019 (UTC) :::::Or you don't know what the hell you are doing, didn't cite any policy in renaming this, and didn't follow the guideline in doing so. Don't do it again. - (on an unsecure connection) 17:29, April 23, 2019 (UTC) ::::I don’t know what the hell I’m doing in having ensured that Memory Alpha didn’t use a weak title with a date of one encounter for almost three hours, even if someone were to have a better idea than the official class name with D7 as an alternate canon designation? Incremental progress means nothing? --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 17:52, April 23, 2019 (UTC) :::::I'm glad we can agree you don't know what the hell you're doing, but never presume breaking policies and guidelines is ensuring anything other than a block. I'm not sure how that would be confused that with progress. Now, if you have MA policy based argument to make, make it, otherwise, I'll assume all you have is that "weak" 'official' line and your completely unfounded assertion that this page is named this way because of the Okudas. Have your read our polices, or did you just assume you knew what "canon" was and how we define it and winged it? - (on an unsecure connection) 19:55, April 23, 2019 (UTC) ::::Oh, let’s hear your policy- and encyclopedic consistency argument for the oh-so-substantial difference in sourcing between the uncontested Qugh class and my proposed article title. One cannot even argue that in D7 there is some kind of a priority-dialogue-canon designation, because it’s already clear from the canon that D7 is not a traditional class as such, but a more general label which can encompass more than one basic shape. But sure, be condescending, vague, hobble progress and insult users trying to move things along even if discussion on this subject had wrongly cooled off for months. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 20:33, April 23, 2019 (UTC) ::::::The difference here is that the Qugh doesn't have an on screen name, while the Sech was called a D7 on screen.--Tuskin38 (talk) 01:58, April 24, 2019 (UTC) ::::As I said, substantially you want a traditional class (name of the first ship) wherever possible, whereas D7 is not that (there is no I.K.S. D7), but clearly a different sort of designation that can be used for these two designs of D7 and also one that is or looks like a K’t’inga. An encyclopedia cannot superficially assume that if people can say “class”, they must mean one encyclopedic category. It’s only fan tradition (largely promoted by the Okudas) to use D7 on the same level as, say, K’t’inga. We have Beyer’s class names, there is precedent for using them on Memory Alpha, so why bother with an exception by rote and such creaky disambiguation? --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 04:01, April 24, 2019 (UTC) : You can't modelling errors in your defense when sfx errors are among what's tolerable in valid resources. On-screen names take precedence over bg sources, period. The Sech class name is a background reference and a redirect, until proven otherwise on-screen. Clearly they were careless in their writing, but on-screen always trumps off. Otherwise, Im not sure how many different ways one can explain the same thing. --Alan (talk) 04:27, April 24, 2019 (UTC) ::::Where did I argue D7 was to be ignored as a behind-the-scenes error? All I’m saying is that MA uses first-ship class names wherever possible, while D7 is not that kind of class designation. Why reject a class name when we don’t actually have an onscreen alternative in the same preferred category? --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 05:18, April 24, 2019 (UTC)